CNN.com’s Army Ant Error

A report published on CNN.com on May 7, 2003, has revealed a major contradiction. (i) Called ‘An Army as Old as the Dinosaurs,’ the article reported the results of genetic analyses performed on army ants by the Cornell University entomologist Sean Brady. Based on these conclusions, CNN.com claimed that army ants, demonstrated to have undergone no change for 100 million years, had evolved from the same source.

The fact is however that since they have remained the same for 100 million years there is no logic in equating army ants with evolution. Since the theory of evolution maintains that species turn into other species, the living things offered as evidence for the theory should actually be shown to have ‘undergone change.’ How is it possible for creatures known to have remained unchanged for 100 million years to be included within the framework of the theory of evolution, itself based on the principle of change? In other words, can ‘lack of evolution’ be regarded as proof of that same evolution? That interpretation makes it clear just how powerful Darwinist prejudices are. CNN.com is blindly convinced that all living things emerged by means of evolution, and is actually able to insist that evolution constitutes the origin of a creature in which no change has been observed.

Living things of this kind, present day specimens of which are identical to specimens which lived as long ago as 100 million years, are known as ‘living fossils.’ These represent one of the black holes of the theory of evolution, since they give the lie to the theory, which maintains that living things can turn into other living things by such natural processes as mutation and natural selection. Rather than adopting the attitude which is always to be found on CNN.com, evolutionists sometimes openly admit that living fossils deal a heavy blow to the theory. In the April edition of Focus magazine, for instance, the following lines appeared in one article: ‘When one thinks how many times the (DNA) copying process has taken place over millions of years, a most interesting picture emerges. According to the theory, such various pressure factors as changing environmental conditions, enemy species and competition between species leads to natural selection and the selection of advantaged species subjected to mutation, and these species (living fossils) should have undergone many changes over such a long period of time. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Let us consider cockroaches as a case in point. These multiply very quickly, their lives are short, but they have remained the same for some 250 million years. Archaeobacteria are an even more striking example. These emerged 3.5 billion years ago, when the earth was still very hot, and are still living today in the boiling waters in Yellowstone National Park…’ (our emphasis)

As we have seen, random mutations and natural selection have had no effect on living fossils. In other words, evolution is a fantasy. Before studies in support of evolution are published on CNN.com, we recommend that the site should not neglect to perform a logical analysis of them. It would thus be able to see that evolution is a theory based not on the scientific facts but merely on blind faith.

Claiming that the universe and everything in it have been formed by coincidences is the most irrational explanation… https://t.co/n62iJiVOKI2018/02/20

It is scientifically impossible for a single protein to come into existence through coincidences. Evolution theory… https://t.co/m8u897zJsj2018/02/19

Using the theory of evolution"s "coincidence claim" to explain the emergence of life is the most irrational method. https://t.co/w6OeU2uoh32018/02/18

Charles Darwin accepted perfection in animals when he said: "(The) Sight of a feather in a peacock"s tail, whenever… https://t.co/dXw8LjTdrt2018/02/18

The logic that nothing, but chance, is scientific is a flawed one. It is a logical dead-end. If brand-new civilizations were discovered in outer space, would the logic of Darwinism and chance be employed in all of them? Would it be claimed that chance established civilizations everywhere? The portrayal of this miserable logic as scientific is the shame and disgrace of the current century.

In order to create, God has no need to design

It's important that the word "design" be properly understood. That God has created a flawless design does not mean that He first made a plan and then followed it. God, the Lord of the Earth and the heavens, needs no "designs" in order to create. God is exalted above all such deficiencies. His planning and creation take place at the same instant.

Whenever God wills a thing to come about, it is enough for Him just to say, "Be!"

As verses of the Qur'an tell us:

His command when He desires a thing is just to say to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 36: 82)

[God is] the Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)